https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Bug ID: 2372946 Summary: Review Request: edit - A simple editor for simple needs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jce@tutamail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/julicen/edit/fedora-42-aa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/julicen/edit/fedora-42-aa... Description: A text editor that pays homage to the classic MS-DOS Editor, but with a modern interface and input controls similar to VS Code. The goal is to provide an accessible editor that even users largely unfamiliar with terminals can easily use. Fedora Account System Username: julicen
This creates a package for the Microsoft Edit text editor, otherwise known as "edit" in the binary. This is a TUI (text-based user interface) text editor that is inspired heavily by MS-DOS Editor and Visual Studio Code.
Koji build task: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134024052
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Julius Enriquez jce@tutamail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/microsof | |t/edit Depends On| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Julius Enriquez jce@tutamail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- This collides with vim, which provides "edit". Microsoft recommends calling it "msedit" instead.
Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Created attachment 2094113 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094113&action=edit Patch to spec to rename to msedit
Here's a suggestion of how to rename to msedit. Note the spec file also needs to be renamed to msedit.spec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #2094113 is| | obsolete| |
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Created attachment 2094114 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094114&action=edit Updated patch to rename edit to msedit
Oops, slight tweak to spec update
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Other spec review comments:
* This is missing accurate licensing information wrt statically linked dependencies, per Rust packaging guidelines - Since this was originally generated from rust2rpm, it should have had the stuff to generate the documentation and guide you for filling out the License tag properly. - SourceLicense is missing too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #5 from Julius Enriquez jce@tutamail.com --- Updated Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/julicen/edit/fedora-rawhi... Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/julicen/edit/fedora-rawhi...
Based on Neal's patch changing the name to msedit and adds in licensing info from rust2rpm and the LICENSE.dependencies file.
Also upstream has been notified in this GitHub pull request that their software is in the process of being packaged in Fedora: https://github.com/microsoft/edit/pull/487
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Julius Enriquez jce@tutamail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: edit - A |Review Request: msedit - A |simple editor for simple |simple editor for simple |needs |needs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9168868 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Created attachment 2094177 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094177&action=edit Patch to spec to handle libicu correctly
To fix the libicu issue, here's a trivial patch to work around it. Ideally, msedit should do the soversion searching itself.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #8 from Julius Enriquez jce@tutamail.com --- Updated SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/julicen/edit/fedora-rawhi... Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/julicen/edit/fedora-rawhi...
Can confirm that with Neal's patch for libicu soversion search, text search in msedit can work without libicu-devel as a runtime dep.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9178978 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2372946-msedit/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 7941 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: msedit-1.2.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm msedit-1.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpquis3r8k')] checks: 32, packages: 2
msedit.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple editor for simple needs. msedit.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple editor for simple needs. msedit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msedit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: msedit-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmplshyp2pq')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2
msedit.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple editor for simple needs. msedit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msedit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/microsoft/edit/archive/v1.2.0/edit-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e4ba6ff1bfecfeff2492306f5850c714bf50ffdb3cc3bb5be3aa987289f240fe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e4ba6ff1bfecfeff2492306f5850c714bf50ffdb3cc3bb5be3aa987289f240fe
Requires -------- msedit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libicui18n.so.76()(64bit) libicuuc.so.76()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- msedit: msedit msedit(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2372946 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Python, Perl, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #14 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
msedit.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple editor for simple needs. msedit.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple editor for simple needs.
This should be changed to "Simple editor inspired by the MS-DOS Editor" to provide a much clearer and compliant summary.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #15 from Julius Enriquez jce@tutamail.com --- Updated SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/julicen/edit/fedora-42-aa... Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/julicen/edit/fedora-42-aa...
Changed summary to "Simple editor inspired by the MS-DOS Editor" to address some rpmlint warnings.
Koji build task: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134109404
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2094268 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094268&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9178978 to 9181665
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9181665 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #18 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.
✅ package contains only permissible content ✅ package builds and installs without errors on rawhide ✅ test suite is run and all unit tests pass ✅ latest version packaged ✅ license matches upstream specification and is acceptable for Fedora ✅ license file is included with %license in %files ✅ package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines
Package APPROVED.
===
Recommended post-import tasks:
- set up package on release-monitoring.org: https://release-monitoring.org/project/378257/
- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer
- track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #19 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- I've also sponsored you to become a packager in Fedora.
Welcome to the Fedora Project and have fun contributing! :)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/msedit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-f22d50a292 (msedit) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f22d50a292
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-f22d50a292 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-f22d50a292 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f22d50a292
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-07-13 04:20:19
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-f22d50a292 (msedit) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-bc6385331d (msedit-1.2.0-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-bc6385331d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372946
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-bc6385331d (msedit-1.2.0-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com